What exactly is the soul?

[inocente]

It was a very good paper. Not that I agree with Descartes, the father of dualism, but look what he wrote centuries ago -with the very limited information he had available-, about remembering (Passions of the soul, Part I, Article XLII):

***"When the soul wills to remember something, this volition brings it about that the gland leans in various directions, driving the spirits towards various regions of the brain until they come to the one containing traces of the object the soul wants to remember. To say that the brain contains a ‘trace’ of an object x is just to say:

The pores of the brain through which the spirits have in the past made their way because of the presence of x have been made by this more apt than other pores to be opened in the same way when the spirits again flow towards them.
And so the spirits enter into these pores more easily when they come upon them, thereby producing in the gland that special movement that represents x to the soul, and makes it recognize x as the thing it wanted to remember."***

Now, if my hippocampus is working fine, we were discussing about possible brain structures and possible physical processes taking place in those structures that might explain the thought patterns usually known as Logic. The fine paper whose reading you suggested, though very interesting, doesn’t deal with Logic.

Looking at the quote, another analogy I’ve heard is with pouring hot water on gelatin, where the rivulets tend to follow previous courses, strengthening the memories.

*So far it has been extremely difficult to make you say something that could work as a reason not to believe in the ISS model. I wonder why having you so many detailed information you don’t go the fast track and present something definitive. *

Tranquilo, ISS tends to duck and dive. It can’t build any weight of evidence for itself, since it says it’s inexplicable, so whenever an aspect of mind is explained without it, whenever a new mountain of evidence appears, ISS just moves somewhere not yet explained.

No problem, eventually there’ll be nowhere left for it to hide, and as with all other extinct beliefs, RIP ISS .

Coming back to Logic: is it, in your opinion, a set of standard physical processes which take place in a set of brain structures? Or what is it?

We’ve already been round this. I could ask “Coming back to Belgium: is it, in your opinion, a set of standard physical processes which take place in a set of brain structures?” or “Coming back to a jumbo jet: is it, in your opinion, a set of standard physical processes which take place in a set of brain structures?”.

So your question doesn’t make sense to me. You capitalized “logic”, I don’t understand why people do that either. But anyway, it would seem obvious that anything we learn is not a standard set of brain structures, or we wouldn’t have to learn it. (Unless we’re really omniscient, but our knowledge is locked until, by going to school we unlock it piece by piece. Might make an entertaining fantasy movie.).

 

[inocente]

Yikes, you did another one of those long posts.

That video doesn’t prove anything except that some power is at work. Even Newton refused to speculate on its nature or cause - for the very reason that I am getting raked over the coals here, that to do so would greatly displease many.

I argued on Newton’s side, I think you with you. Here is what he said:

“I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.”

Notice the bit about occult qualities. Einstein had data which Newton did not, and so was able to make a more general induction. Knowledge builds, generation by generation. It does not stand still, as some might wish, as if we know no more than Newton or Thomas.

*Neither I nor Aristotle nor Aquinas ignored the very real causality of secondary or natural causality. But ultimately God is the cause of every thing and every action ( except our own reasoning and willing ).

Of course God uses secondary causes, as I just said and have always said.*

I don’t think Aristotle or Thomas would make such an argument, that God is the cause except where they find it inconvenient, and God is not the cause except where they find it inconvenient. It was you who claimed gravity is “a power exercised by the angels or God for the purpose of governing the universe” and I simply pointed out the implications.

I said that the Scriptures shows that God has often interposed himself directly in the history of the world. Read the Psalms for examle or Genesis or Job.

Nope, you said “Hardly a book of the Bible goes by without God demonstrating that he governs all things, either directly or through his angels”. Where in the bible does it say that governing means God has to micro-manage absolutely everything, even down to exercising his power of gravity to keep us all on the ground, even down to running around supplying every bacterium and speck of mold with a soul before it can function?

That is not what I said or even intimated, that is just your typical way of twisting what I or others say so you can score points ( in your own mind ). And certainly, since gravity is a primary cause of the order of the universe, God is at least the ultimate agent cause of that power. You reject it simply because you reject Aristotelian/Thomastic notions of causality, which you claim all good Baptists reject because they reject A&T.

Again, you claimed gravity is “a power exercised by the angels or God for the purpose of governing the universe” and I simply pointed out the implication that by launching satellites we add to His workload.

I reject it because it makes no sense. Please don’t keep trying to blame Aristotle and Thomas. You’ve said you reject them when you don’t agree with them, that’s fine for you, fine for you alone, so how come no one else is allowed to do what Linus does?

I’m not rejecting what they wrote, I’m rejecting what you wrote, what you Linus wrote, what you and you alone Linus wrote.

Phui. I was talking about the teachings of the Catholic Church and you called them far fetched.

For the second time, I’ve never said anything about the Church. You called some of Aristotle’s and Thomas’ ideas far-fetched, and I just substituted your name for theirs. It was you who called some of their ideas far-fetched, I was only talking about you. If you get to pick which of their ideas you think are far-fetched, how come no one can do the same with your ideas?

*When the Catechism contrasts the body of man with his spiritual soul, I give you credit for being able to understand that it is contrasting man’s material body with his immaterial soul. I am sorry that you cannot see a univical application of terms. But of course I’m sure that if the Church had known that you were going to make such a fuss, it would have been more careful and included the terms material and immaterial in its definitions. *

No need for such distinctions, just have some respect for the authors and read what’s written in the CCC and the Bible rather than imposing your own view. I hope you’d agree that scripture cannot reveal anything to those who read into it whatever they feel like.

The contract is the new covenant Christ made when he founded his Church

Leaving aside the preposterous idea that the new covenant obliges us to believe in ISS, have a word with your priest. It’s mind-boggling that you call the new covenant a contract. Only Satan uses contracts. Look up the difference between covenant and contract and report back.

By paying attention to the Catechism. I have no idea what " highfaluting metaphysical concoctions " you are referring to.

ISS is a highfaluting metaphysical concoction. It does nothing to feed anyone’s family, nothing to make anyone a better person, and contributes nothing to salvation.

 

[inocente]

Inocente: my sister, which molecule, or grain of sand did God not create, and sustain in existence? Is there anything in this universe that escapes Him, or exist apart from Him?

None, but in the bible God sustains just fine without micro-managing everything, and God isn’t made of immaterial spiritual substance, since if God was made of anything, the bible would explain where it came from, and what it was before it became God.

 

[inocente]

Might as well save you energy Juan, some minds are congenitally opposed philosophical reasoning and reject Catholic teaching for congenital religious reasons.

*OED definition of congential:

"1 (Of a disease or physical abnormality) present from birth: e.g. “a congenital malformation of the heart”.

1.1 (Of a person) having a particular trait from birth or by firmly established habit: e.g. “a congenital liar”.*"

I’ve put up with a lot of personal insults on this thread, don’t know how you guys imagine you’re a good advertisement for Catholicism. Can I ask, is Catholicism, to you, zero free will, total indoctrination? Everyone wearing gray, everyone in lines, a place for everyone and everyone in their place, no questions asked as long as everyone does precisely as they’re told?

 

[inocente]

I really would like to know where in Europe are these “right-wing politicians” located exactly?

The reason Greece is in a bind is that they have spent well beyond their means for years, a welfare state that is out of control and individual entrepreneurship is stifled by an overbearing government. Their collapse was only a matter of time.

The same fate by the way, that Italy, Spain and France are doomed to repeat.

The sad truth is that when given a choice the populace will want to keep their cake and eat it too. It is human nature.
Who if given a chance would not want to receive money and not have to produce it?
And get pissed if then someone tells them the party is over?

If the extreme left had a real solution for these problems I would not only vote for them, indeed I would also campaign for them, alas this is not the case.

Demagoguery is alive and well everywhere in the four corners of this earth.

Yes, that’s exactly the view that drove them to vote for a Marxist government. We could also discuss how the penalties on Germany after WWI generated the extremism which helped Hitler to power, but this isn’t a political forum and it’s off-topic, perhaps you’d like to start a thread wherever such threads go. I was just commenting on Juan’s friend, that perhaps she might find a job in Greece now. Having dutifully answered all the posts addressed to me (hopefully), while managing to hold my temper in this heat (40º, around 100 in old money), I’m off.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yikes, you did another one of those long posts.

I argued on Newton’s side, I think you with you. Here is what he said:

“I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.”

Notice the bit about occult qualities. Einstein had data which Newton did not, and so was able to make a more general induction. Knowledge builds, generation by generation. It does not stand still, as some might wish, as if we know no more than Newton or Thomas.

I don’t think Einstein has proven that gravity is anything but some mysterious ( occult power, if you will ). Of course much of Einsteing seems " occult " to me, since I don’t understand most of it and absolutely reject any notion that space and time are anything other than the common notion most people have of them.

I don’t think Aristotle or Thomas would make such an argument, that God is the cause except where they find it inconvenient, and God is not the cause except where they find it inconvenient. It was you who claimed gravity is “a power exercised by the angels or God for the purpose of governing the universe” and I simply pointed out the implications.

I have only been speculating. And if we cannot pin it down to some physical reality, then it must be the application of some angelic or Divine power. That may be speculation, but as a provisional speculation, it is perfectly justified.

Nope, you said “Hardly a book of the Bible goes by without God demonstrating that he governs all things, either directly or through his angels”

Have you actually read the Bible? If you have I don’t see how you could have missed that, God tells us in many places that he governs all things, even nations. Didn’t Christ tell Pontius Pilot, " If my heavenly Father had not given it to you, you would have no poser. " ? Didn’t the Angel of the Lord say that the Angel of Persia had been arguing with Cyrus to get him moving? Didn’t the Lord call Cyrus his servant, his chosen one, his instrument of vengance against Babylon?.My goodness, read Genesis, Jobe and the rest.

Where in the bible does it say that governing means God has to micro-manage absolutely everything, even down to exercising his power of gravity to keep us all on the ground, even down to running around supplying every bacterium and speck of mold with a soul before it can function?

" Micro-managing " is your term, not mine. The fact that God normally operates through secondary causality, but directly at others does not amount to " micro-managing. " But God’s causality is always at work either way, because it is God who created each being and gave it its nature by which it acts naturally to carry out God’s plan. Also God is directly present in each being maintaining it in existence - so says Aquinas.

Again, you claimed gravity is “a power exercised by the angels or God for the purpose of governing the universe” and I simply pointed out the implication that by launching satellites we add to His workload.

Again, I never said it was, I said that, barring proof that it is a natural force, it is a reasonable conclusion. Nothing " adds to His workload, " he has planned and provided for every contingency.I

I reject it because it makes no sense. Please don’t keep trying to blame Aristotle and Thomas. You’ve said you reject them when you don’t agree with them, that’s fine for you, fine for you alone, so how come no one else is allowed to do what Linus does?

I’m not rejecting what they wrote, I’m rejecting what you wrote, what you Linus wrote, what you and you alone Linus wrote.

O.K., that’s fair. Yes, I do reject some of their thinking… But God is still the ultimate cause of everything that happens, whether of gravity or strong and weak forces or of electro-magnetic forces, or when the chicken hawk snags a little bunny, or when the grass turns green in the spring, or when the sparrow hatches her young…

cont. next post
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Post # 670 continued

For the second time, I’ve never said anything about the Church. You called some of Aristotle’s and Thomas’ ideas far-fetched, and I just substituted your name for theirs. It was you who called some of their ideas far-fetched, I was only talking about you. If you get to pick which of their ideas you think are far-fetched, how come no one can do the same with your ideas?

If you want to call my notion of where memory is located or what causes a phantasm or what gravity is, that is fair. But not when you call the notion of an Immaterial, Spiritual Soul " far fetched. " Because that is exactly what the Church teaches, as I have insisted time and time again. But though the Church merely contrasts the body with the spiritual aspects of man, Aquinas actually uses the term " immaterial " in describing the nature of the human soul or of any soul. By " immaterial " he means the soul is a spiritual substance composed of no physical parts or energies, etc. and therefore incorruptable - as opposed to material substances which are subject to corruption.

No need for such distinctions, just have some respect for the authors and read what’s written in the CCC and the Bible rather than imposing your own view.

I have not imposed my view, I have stated facts that are obvious, views which the Church has always held.

I hope you’d agree that scripture cannot reveal anything to those who read into it whatever they feel like.

I have only repeated what the Church teaches.

Leaving aside the preposterous idea that the new covenant obliges us to believe in ISS, have a word with your priest

My priest would readily agree that the human soul is an Immaterial Spiritual Substance. That is what the Church teaches and has always taught.

It’s mind-boggling that you call the new covenant a contract.

Certainly it is a contract. God has promised to be faithful to his promisses if we live up to our obligations to Him.

Only Satan uses contracts. Look up the difference between covenant and contract and report back.

That’s silly. I don’t know anything about " contracts " in regard to Satan. But God’s covenants have always been agreements between God and men. Remember when the Israelits promised to do all that God commanded when Moses read the law to them? And promises were made each time God made a covenant with them.

ISS is a highfaluting metaphysical concoction. It does nothing to feed anyone’s family, nothing to make anyone a better person, and contributes nothing to salvation.

It is at the very heart of God’s Revelation, if you do not believe in a spiritual soul which is immortal, having rational powers and a free will, how do you propose to be saved; or I should say, what will be saved and how will that come about.

As far as feeding one’s family, one does it by using one’s rational intellect and free will, which are powers of the immaterial, spiritual soul .

" Highfaluting metaphysical concoction, " there you go again.

Linus2nd .

 

[ynotzap]

None, but in the bible God sustains just fine without micro-managing everything, and God isn’t made of immaterial spiritual substance, since if God was made of anything, the bible would explain where it came from, and what it was before it became God.

God is not made, God is, He is not material, physical, except in Christ, He is Pure Spirit, subsisting in Himself, needing nothing, because He is the I Am, we are who are not because of He who is. He is not made of any substance, but is the cause of all substances. God is known in His essence, and His essence is Existence, Being, Pure Act, Pure Spirit. Spirits can only be known, not felt (in their nature), intellectual knowing is a spiritual act. It is in intellectual knowing that we know we have a spiritual soul made to the image and likeness of God. We think of God existentially, that He is, and not what He is.

Can we by willing it cause one strand of hair to grow? Would that be considered micromanaging? Or when an amoeba divides, we know they are animate, but are they the cause of their own activity, matter does not move itself, or capable or organizing itself with order or purpose, it is not it’s own organizer. Even intelligent beings are not their own organizers, we respond to physical and spiritual laws just as all creation does. We are not the power of our own wills, even though we experience free choice, within the realm of a reality that is not our doing, so what is it that God doesn’t micro-manage or apart from His complete control? Deism states that God created the universe, then He left it to manage itself, without Him. We understand that all things fall within His providence, so we see this as an error in their belief, because we know God is in complete control, and sustains what He created, and that includes everything, proven by Metaphysics and Faith. God causes us to do and accomplish.

In dialoguing with each other, because we are all imperfect, we sometimes are, or appear uncharitable in the heat of discussion, I don’t think this was intended, and we are sorry if it did offend you. Please forgive us. We all at times experience frustration when trying hard to make a point, and it does bring out the weakness in our personalities.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

*OED definition of congential:

"1 (Of a disease or physical abnormality) present from birth: e.g. “a congenital malformation of the heart”.

1.1 (Of a person) having a particular trait from birth or by firmly established habit: e.g. “a congenital liar”.*"

I’ve put up with a lot of personal insults on this thread, don’t know how you guys imagine you’re a good advertisement for Catholicism.

Perhaps I should have said " constitutionally " unable to accept the metaphysical truths expounded by A & T, or any of the teachings of the Catholic Church. Which I find amazing because even the Arab and Jewish philosophers/theologians accepted much on both accounts. And certainly we don’t meet your standards of what represents Catholicism because we don’t accept your glib responses as reasonable. But you see truth is more important to us that chummy fellowship. Truth to us is the basis for every relationship, if that isn’t there, there can be no relationship worthy fo the name.

Can I ask, is Catholicism, to you, zero free will, total indoctrination? Everyone wearing gray, everyone in lines, a place for everyone and everyone in their place, no questions asked as long as everyone does precisely as they’re told?

When you are raised Catholic or when one converts to the Catholic Church one agrees to abide by the teaching of the Church in faith and morals. Most of that is contained in the Catechism. I wouldn’t call that " indoctrination, " since one is not forced to accept it. And on matters not related to faith and morals there is plenty of room for differences. For example there are 24 Rites in the Catholic Church, all of whom celebrate Mass differently. There also different liturgical celebrations within the various religious orders.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church#Liturgical_worship

You said something in post 667 which I find very curious, which touches on the general topic of this thread. You said, " …God isn’t made of immaterial spiritual substance, since if God was made of anything, the bible would explain where it came from, and what it was before it became God. "

Of course God isn’t MADE of anything, He simply IS… But since He IS, He is something which exists. In fact when Moses asked God who he was, God answered, " I AM WHO AM. " Aquinas taught that that meant that God was an utterly simple substance, a PURE SPIRIT, or an Immaterial Being, Who simply always was, is, and will be, a Being who is beyond all categories of being, and the ultimate source of all that ever was, is, or will be. That is what the Catholic Church teaches as well.

I think you have a definite problem with the notion of " immateriality, " that some how it is tied up with your notion of materiality. You seem unable to accept that anything with a total lack of materiality could exist. Therefore you reject the concept of an immaterial, spritual soul, or immaterial, spiritual angels, or a purely immaterial, spiritual God.

Surely you see the dilemma you are in. If God exists, he must be either matter or spirit, material or immaterial. If the soul exists, it must be either matter or spirit, material or immaterial. It is going to be very difficult to explain the existence of God or the soul in material terms. It forces on to eithe abandon both or to say that God and the soul are little more that forces of nature and therefore a part of nature.

That is why the philosophy of A & T is so valuabe, that is why the teaching of the Catholic Church is so valuable. They leave no doubt about who God is and what the soul is.

Now as far as your statement that, " …the Bible would explain where it came from…," that is a meaningless statement. Christ never even mentioned the Bible other than the writings of the Israelites, nor did the Apostles mention the Bible. Most of the Bible was not written down until the end of the first century. Everything until then was strictly handed on from one Disciple to another, one Bishop to another. In other words Tradition came before the Bible and not all of tradition was written in the Bible. And Christ told the Apostles, " I will send you the Advocate, who will teach you everything. " He did not say, " I will give you a Bible. " And it was a long time before all the books of the Bible were assembled, and longer before the Inspiried books were assembled. And it was longer still before it was agreed upon which of these books were inspired. And who did that?

Linus2nd

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I suggest you don’t play poker for money, as you have a number of “tells” .

I think you mixed up molecules and atoms. That’s the only reason why you would “doubt any chemist can” explain why oxygen is a gas (post #611), and carbon is solid even though it’s “an element which is lighter than oxygen” (post #641).

Your original question was “So, in terms of oxygen’s organization, how do you explain it?” (post #595) and my answer (post #599) is standard physics of chemistry as taught in every high school for many years. I’m not trying to claim anything you wouldn’t find in every textbook on the subject, and assumed you would know that oxygen gas is made of molecules, not free atoms.

If you’re still dissatisfied with what’s been taught in every high school for many years, and which provides a very full explanation for this kind of question, I think you would probably be misunderstanding some other point as well, but it’s a long way from the topic of this thread.

You are right, I wasn’t clear enough in my first question. And though besides “O2” there are other forms in which oxygen exists, including the atomic form “O”, I wasn’t thinking on this highly reactive form when I proposed the question. I just was thinking that oxygen is O, independently of the fact that the most common species in our atmosphere is the molecular “O2”. Besides what I studied of chemistry in the high school, I continued studying it at the University, during the bachelor’s and the master’s courses. You studied informatics, and it seems natural that you base your judgement regarding chemistry only on your high school training.

Coming back to the point: there is a great variety of gases which are stable under normal conditions, and all of them have different organizations. There is no specific organization of elementary particles which explains why a given substance is a gas at certain pressure and temperature. Without changing its organization, a substance can be liquified, or solidified, of fused, or evaporated, or gasified by changing pressure and temperature. The right answer to my question is that to be a gas is not a property which depends on the way a substance is organized, but on pressure and temperature.

Certainly there are certain properties which depend on how a particle is organized, like in the case of enantiomers. But not all the properties of the enantiomers of a given substance are different; even with different structures, they have common properties.

At some moment in our discussion you thought that besides “matter”, “organization” is necessary to explain phenomena, and you compared “organization” to the aristotelian notion of “form”. However, for Aristotle “form” and “matter” are different principles. Do you think similarly?

It would seem that right-wing politicians in Europe have brought about a miraculous resurrection of Marxism. They piled hardship on the Greeks to the point where all hope was lost, and Greece found its hope by electing a Marxist government. There you go, hardship drives extremism. Such is life.

Why not? Karl Marx was a very clever man, and his ideas could be rediscovered under certain conditions. But I don’t think the Greeks who elected a leftist party are knowledgeable about Marxist doctrines. I guess my teacher could try and go there to teach them, but first they would need to become a richer country; if they don’t, Marxism would make them miserable and they would not have the money that my teacher needs to eat. I guess she is good in Mexico teaching ontology. I don’t think she would be willing to starve for Marxism. Perhaps she is not as clever as Marx, but she is clever.

I’ve read bits of Descartes. But Descartes isn’t posting on this thread, nor is Aristotle or Thomas. The question is, if any of them were alive today, would they be blinkered to what is now known, would they shut out modern knowledge and still write exactly what they did, unaltered, as their fans today would seem to want?

Who knows, Inocente? It might be, it might be not. I can see that those guys were really fond of knowledge (they produced knowledge!), and it could be that the new scientific discoveries could serve them to further support their positions; or it could be that they would find it necessary to modify their ideas, I really don’t know; but I think that they would be quite joyful with the relatively new discoveries of neurobiology; specially Descartes, the dualist. I don’t think he would be opposed to them at all.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Looking at the quote, another analogy I’ve heard is with pouring hot water on gelatin, where the rivulets tend to follow previous courses, strengthening the memories.

Tranquilo, ISS tends to duck and dive. It can’t build any weight of evidence for itself, since it says it’s inexplicable, so whenever an aspect of mind is explained without it, whenever a new mountain of evidence appears, ISS just moves somewhere not yet explained.

No problem, eventually there’ll be nowhere left for it to hide, and as with all other extinct beliefs, RIP ISS .n

We’ve already been round this. I could ask “Coming back to Belgium: is it, in your opinion, a set of standard physical processes which take place in a set of brain structures?” or “Coming back to a jumbo jet: is it, in your opinion, a set of standard physical processes which take place in a set of brain structures?”.

So your question doesn’t make sense to me. You capitalized “logic”, I don’t understand why people do that either. But anyway, it would seem obvious that anything we learn is not a standard set of brain structures, or we wouldn’t have to learn it. (Unless we’re really omniscient, but our knowledge is locked until, by going to school we unlock it piece by piece. Might make an entertaining fantasy movie.).

I had no intention to bother you when I capitalized “logic”.

Ok, may be in the future, if there is a research about how the brain works “logically” (when it does, of course, because sometimes it doesn’t) you will be able to respond to my question. For the moment you have no answer, but strange questions (and I am unable to answer them, honestly; especially the one about the jumbo jet. That is a difficult one!).

While that moment arrives -if it arrives-, you can keep working on your obituaries, announcing a death which for some reason, or lack of reason, you desire. Today, you have no real arguments to fight dualism, but tomorrow…, tomorrow…

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Might as well save you energy Juan, some minds are congenitally opposed philosophical reasoning and reject Catholic teaching for congenital religious reasons.

Linus2nd

Thank you for your concern, Linus.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

All Catholics must believe that " The Church teaches dogmatically that the human being has an intellectual soul ( Fifth Lateran Council ). It also teaches that the soul is the essential form of man ( Council of Vienne ). The Fifth Lateran Council also taught that each human being possesses an individual soul. The Church also teachs that the individual human soul was created immediately, out of nothing ( Fifth Lateran Council, the scriptures, the teaching of the Fathers, etc., post # 230 ). And that at death we will be judged at death and rewarded or condemned accordingly and that at the General Judgment our souls and bodies will be reunited and our eternal reward or punishment will commence. This is all Dogma. The Catechism explains it all in paragraphs 355-368, which I have mentioned several times here.

See Vico’s posts 75 & 82.

On all these matters there are no options.

Linus2nd

You are certainly entitled to your Own personal view that the Church infallibly rather than prudential y affirms Aristotle’s definition of the soul to safeguard the far more generalised teaching of the Creed.

If you read the Catechism articles you quote you will find various different meanings of soul are employed and the one closest to Aristotle is offered for "consideration. "

And even if it was infallible… then you yourself would be in hot water because it’s clear the Catechism understands it is the spiritual nature of the soul’s meaning that separates us from the animals - something you feel free to allow animals hence contradicting Church teaching .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

A gross and unjustified opinion. I really don’t give a hoot for you judgments, I don’t think anyone else does either.

You are the only one I disagree with on matters of faith.

Linus2nd

Linus these seem not the wise words of philosophy, apologetics or even logic.
For if they were true why the need to keep responding to my observations… and why are they mere unfounded emotive assertions with no associated reasons or arguments .

Like I say, if you want to be taken seriosly when you critique others you must be prepared to answer critique of your own presented views. To simply refuse to answer the contradictions we observe in your assertions is surely an absurd expectation on a philosophy forum.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You are using the terms out of context, which is obvious here to all except you and Inocent. When the Catechism or the Dogmas of the Church say man is composed of a body and a spiritual soul, they are contrasting the material and the immaterial. I’m sorry you are incapable of understanding that.

Oh, you mean you and Inocent? Everyone else agrees on these points. But I don’t ever expect you or Inocent to agree with me about anything. So I don’t worry about that.

For a professional scientist your comprehension is amazingly narrow. Makes me glad I didn’t take it up.

Phui, think whatever you want.

Linus2nd

Linus you are the one who disagrees with the whole of scholasticism which considered it Phil 101 that the phantasm, in their system of apprehension, was material.

I reasonably therefore ask you to define what material in this context means to you that you would deny so basic an accepted truth.

I have also asked you to explain why your unusual understanding of material above would not allow the “occult” hypothesis scientists call gravity to have the same immaterial status you accord to your phantasms?

These are surely very fair and reasonable questions… and all your phuis and not giving a hoot and above sarcasm cannot hide the fact you a not engaging and therefore your views are losing credibility here

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You are certainly entitled to your Own personal view that the Church infallibly rather than prudential y affirms Aristotle’s definition of the soul to safeguard the far more generalised teaching of the Creed.

" All Catholics must believe that " The Church teaches dogmatically that the human being has an intellectual soul ( Fifth Lateran Council ). It also teaches that the soul is the essential form of man ( Council of Vienne ). The Fifth Lateran Council also taught that each human being possesses an individual soul. The Church also teachs that the individual human soul was created immediately, out of nothing ( Fifth Lateran Council, the scriptures, the teaching of the Fathers, etc., post # 230 ). And that at death we will be judged at death and rewarded or condemned accordingly and that at the General Judgment our souls and bodies will be reunited and our eternal reward or punishment will commence. This is all Dogma. The Catechism explains it all in paragraphs 355-368, which I have mentioned several times here. See Vico’s posts 75 & 82."

These are dogmatic statements. They are infallible teachings of the Church, they are not my personal view of anything.

If you read the Catechism articles you quote you will find various different meanings of soul are employed and the one closest to Aristotle is offered for "consideration. "

These paragraphs rephrase the dogmas in the mode of modern composition. They are still dogmatic, They do not let you off the hook.

And even if it was infallible… then you yourself would be in hot water because it’s clear the Catechism understands it is the spiritual nature of the soul’s meaning that separates us from the animals - something you feel free to allow animals hence contradicting Church teaching .

I was not talking about animals, I was talking about the human soul. That is what is infallible and there is no maybe about it. Where did you learn your Catechism anyway?

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus these seem not the wise words of philosophy, apologetics or even logic.
For if they were true why the need to keep responding to my observations… and why are they mere unfounded emotive assertions with no associated reasons or arguments .

Like I say, if you want to be taken seriosly when you critique others you must be prepared to answer critique of your own presented views. To simply refuse to answer the contradictions we observe in your assertions is surely an absurd expectation on a philosophy forum.

I told you that when I was talking about memory, the phantasm, and non-human souls, I was speculating and I gave you reasons. No one need accept them. There are no contradictions.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus you are the one who disagrees with the whole of scholasticism which considered it Phil 101 that the phantasm, in their system of apprehension, was material.

I disagree with them and I have explained why. If that explanation doesn’t satisfy you, I’m sorry.

I reasonably therefore ask you to define what material in this context means to you that you would deny so basic an accepted truth.

" Material " in my understanding, and in the context in which I used it, is opposed to that which is immaterial, and a phantasm is immaterial as far as I can see.It is a mental representation, a kind of mental image abstracted from incoming sensory data. In my opinion the material brain cannot produce an abstracted, immaterial image. But the intellect can. There is no logical reason to restrict the activity of the intellect to the activity of the agent intellect in forming a universal concept.

I have also asked you to explain why your unusual understanding of material above would not allow the “occult” hypothesis scientists call gravity to have the same immaterial status you accord to your phantasms?

For the simple reason that we are mixing apples and oranges here. Gravity is obviously a power, it is not a phantasm, it is not an abstracted immaterial representation. If you want to call it an occult power, that is fine with me, as long as you mean a power applied by angels or God. But that is only speculation. I think it is possible. Certainly no one has been able to explain it adequately and no one has found any gravitons as yet.

These are surely very fair and reasonable questions… and all your phuis and not giving a hoot and above sarcasm cannot hide the fact you a not engaging and therefore your views are losing credibility here

Yes, a lesson you could pay attention to yourself.

Linus2nd

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It was a very good paper. Not that I agree with Descartes, the father of dualism, but look what he wrote centuries ago -with the very limited information he had available-, about remembering (Passions of the soul, Part I, Article XLII):

***"When the soul wills to remember something, this volition brings it about that the gland leans in various directions, driving the spirits towards various regions of the brain until they come to the one containing traces of the object the soul wants to remember. To say that the brain contains a ‘trace’ of an object x is just to say:

The pores of the brain through which the spirits have in the past made their way because of the presence of x have been made by this more apt than other pores to be opened in the same way when the spirits again flow towards them.
And so the spirits enter into these pores more easily when they come upon them, thereby producing in the gland that special movement that represents x to the soul, and makes it recognize x as the thing it wanted to remember."***

Now, if my hippocampus is working fine, we were discussing about possible brain structures and possible physical processes taking place in those structures that might explain the thought patterns usually known as Logic. The fine paper whose reading you suggested, though very interesting, doesn’t deal with Logic.

So far it has been extremely difficult to make you say something that could work as a reason not to believe in the ISS model. I wonder why having you so many detailed information you don’t go the fast track and present something definitive.

Coming back to Logic: is it, in your opinion, a set of standard physical processes which take place in a set of brain structures? Or what is it?

JF I think you miss the main Phil thrust of the non IIS position.

Nobody denies that a consistent IIS model of explanation cannot be proposed.
The point is the strength of its necessity.

It is an axiom of non superstitious thinking, which includes the philosophers of Buddhism, Greece, Arabia and Christians that we do not ex plain the effects of occult causes from immaterial substances without first ruling out any possibility of material substances being the immediate cause.

Given that reasonable models of material agency is at hand for explaining the retention of sensible experiences, ie brain based memory, then it strains philosophy to think further abroad rather than engaging in more deeply walking the tracks of more conclusive empirical science.

Time and time again we see this practical reasoning proven over history with the cause of the movements of the planets, the evolutionary origin of Life etc etc.

The ISS model is certainly plausible, but it’s absolute necessity is no longer convincing enough to rule out material competition.

That being so axioms of practical philosophy suggest energy is best spent looking into material world explanations for sensible memory rather than spiritual substances.

 

[inocente]

I don’t think Einstein has proven that gravity is anything but some mysterious ( occult power, if you will ). Of course much of Einsteing seems " occult " to me, since I don’t understand most of it and absolutely reject any notion that space and time are anything other than the common notion most people have of them.

There are a number of tests, including, as I’ve said before, that GPS just wouldn’t work if Einstein was wrong. If Einstein was wrong then the only way GPS could possibly work is by magic, and GPS engineers would be wizards and witches, casting spells to make GPS work. I suggest that most Catholics would find that a silly choice. I suggest that most Catholics would be correct.

I have only been speculating. And if we cannot pin it down to some physical reality, then it must be the application of some angelic or Divine power. That may be speculation, but as a provisional speculation, it is perfectly justified.

Either gravity is the physical reality of curved spacetime, as tested, or God is pulling the wool over our eyes, deliberately deceiving everyone except his prophet Linus.

*Have you actually read the Bible? If you have I don’t see how you could have missed that, God tells us in many places that he governs all things, even nations. Didn’t Christ tell Pontius Pilot, " If my heavenly Father had not given it to you, you would have no poser. " ? Didn’t the Angel of the Lord say that the Angel of Persia had been arguing with Cyrus to get him moving? Didn’t the Lord call Cyrus his servant, his chosen one, his instrument of vengance against Babylon?.My goodness, read Genesis, Jobe and the rest.

" Micro-managing " is your term, not mine. The fact that God normally operates through secondary causality, but directly at others does not amount to " micro-managing. " But God’s causality is always at work either way, because it is God who created each being and gave it its nature by which it acts naturally to carry out God’s plan. Also God is directly present in each being maintaining it in existence - so says Aquinas.*

Too late, you already made the claims, and there are no such claims in the bible.

Again, I never said it was, I said that, barring proof that it is a natural force, it is a reasonable conclusion. Nothing " adds to His workload, " he has planned and provided for every contingency.

You are the first person I’ve ever met to believe that plain old gravity is supernatural until someone proves beyond doubt to you that it is natural.

O.K., that’s fair. Yes, I do reject some of their thinking… But God is still the ultimate cause of everything that happens, whether of gravity or strong and weak forces or of electro-magnetic forces, or when the chicken hawk snags a little bunny, or when the grass turns green in the spring, or when the sparrow hatches her young…

Sure, but God is the creator of nature, not the creator of every event in nature, that would be pantheism.